JUDGMENT : Ravi Nath Verma, J. The plaintiff-petitioner has moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 12.12.2007 passed by learned Munsif-II, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 171 of 2005 whereby the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code"), has been rejected. 2. The relevant facts of the case as pleaded by the plaintiff-petitioner in the plaint, in short, is that Chakbandi Plot No. 1253 appertaining to Chakbandi Khata No. 194 having an area of 41 decimals and Chakbandi Plot No. 1254 appertaining to Chakbandi Khata No. 187 area 6 decimals originally recorded in the name of Bhikni Mandalani-mother of the defendants. The aforesaid two plots were lying adjacent to each other but the plot No. 1254 being adjacent to the main road was more valuable than the plot No. 1253. The mother of the plaintiff namely Deoki Devi purchased 7 decimals out of 41 decimals of the Chakbandi Plot No. 1253 and 4 decimals out of total area of 6 decimals of Chakbandi Plot No. 1254 i.e. in total 11 decimals from Bhikani Mandalani-the mother of the defendants, by the registered sale deed dated 26.06.1966 from the southern side of those two plots and the said 11 decimals of land constituted one block of land and since then Deoki Devi continued to be in possession, the details of which is given in Schedule 'A' of the plaint. The said Deoki Devi after purchase constructed the boundary wall and a house over the said plot and she as well as her successors-in-interest including the plaintiff and proforma defendants have been continuing in possession. 3. The further pleading is that the mother of the defendants Bhikani Mandalani by another sale deed dated 06.10.1967 transferred the remaining portion of 2 decimals of plot No. 1254 being the northern side of the said plot and 3 decimals of plot No. 1253 to one Rajmati Devi but the said Rajmati Devi in connivance with the defendants encroached upon a portion of Schedule 'A' land from northern extreme and the said Rajmati Devi claimed the encroached portion of Schedule 'A' land as part of her land. In T.S. No. 92 of 1970, the illegal encroachment by Rajmati Devi was exposed after the report of the Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner and, thereafter, the said Rajmati Devi sold the land, which she had purchased by registered deed dated 01.12.1978 to Deoki Devi-the mother of the plaintiff and in this way, Deoki Devi came in possession of the entire land of Rajmati Devi but the defendants, who are the sons of Bhikani Mandalani, had always their greedy eyes on the southern portion of plot No. 1254 and forcibly encroached upon the lands, the details of which is given in Schedule 'B' and erected makeshift shed on the encroached portion. Where-after, the present suit was filed with prayer for declaration of title of the plaintiff as well as the proforma defendants over the Schedule 'B' land as mentioned at the foot of the plaint and for recovery of possession after removing the illegal constructions thereon. 4. After notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement. Thereafter on 22.03.2007, the plaintiff filed the petition for amendment in the details of the land given in Schedule 'A' of the plaint but the trial court after considering the amendment petition and the rejoinder filed by the defendants-respondents rejected the prayer by the order impugned dated 12.12.2007 holding that from perusal of record and the said petition, it is not clear that the plaintiff wants what type of amendment and in which manner, he wants to amend his plaint and the proposed amendment is not clear, it is vague in terms and also at belated stage. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioner again filed a petition under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code for review of the earlier order dated 12.12.2007 and consequently for amending the schedule of the plaint but the same was also rejected vide order dated 09.06.2009 holding that the same has been filed at a belated stage and the amendment, if allowed at this stage, would amount to denovo trial. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned dated 12.12.2007 and subsequent order dated 09.06.2009 seriously contended that the court below failed to consider that the amendment sought for was formal in nature and there was no delay and the suit was fixed for examination of witnesses only. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned dated 12.12.2007 and subsequent order dated 09.06.2009 seriously contended that the court below failed to consider that the amendment sought for was formal in nature and there was no delay and the suit was fixed for examination of witnesses only. It was also submitted that the amendment sought for was imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case and the substance is already mentioned in paragraph nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the plaint and the amendment was bona fide and will not cause any prejudice to the other side. Even if, the amendment is allowed, it will not change the nature and character of the suit. It was also submitted that only prayer of the plaintiff was to incorporate the details of the two plots No. and the area already given in paragraph nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the plaint in Schedule 'A', which was by mistake, could not be mentioned. 6. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents opposed the prayer on the ground that the said petition was filed at a belated stage. 7. Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code enables the parties to make amendment of the plaint, which is reproduced here in below: "17. Amendment of pleadings-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." From mere perusal of the above provision, it would appear that the amendment can be prayed at any stage of the proceeding. In the instant case, as it appears from the order impugned that before examination of witnesses, the said petition for amendment was filed. In the case Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and ors.; (2009) 10 SCC 84 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of amendment of pleadings in paragraph 63 of the said judgment held as follows:- "63. In the case Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and ors.; (2009) 10 SCC 84 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of amendment of pleadings in paragraph 63 of the said judgment held as follows:- "63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive. 8. From the guidelines given in the above case, it is clear that the court while deciding the application for amendment must not refuse bona fide, legitimate and necessary amendments. The very purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right but the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper technical approach. Liberal approach should be general rule particularly, in cases where the amendment sought for is formal in nature and the facts have already been stated in other paragraphs of the plaint. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations. 9. Here, I would like to quote the amendment sought for by the plaintiff-petitioner. In the petition filed for amendment, the relevant portion is mentioned in paragraph-1, which is as under : "1. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations. 9. Here, I would like to quote the amendment sought for by the plaintiff-petitioner. In the petition filed for amendment, the relevant portion is mentioned in paragraph-1, which is as under : "1. That, owing to inadvertent mistake the reference of 7 decimal of land of plot No. 1253 and total area of land purchased by Deoki Devi by deed No. 11786 dated 26.6.1966 referred to in para 3(1) of the plaint, has been omitted to be mentioned in Schedule A. So to rectify the mistake the plaint may be allowed to be amended to incorporate aforementioned omitted details regarding land of plot No. 1253 and total area of land." 10. In view of the fact that the amendment sought for by the petitioner before examination of the witnesses of the parties, the court below should have considered the pleadings and amendment as prayed in a liberal manner since the facts were already stated in different paragraphs of the plaint. Therefore, I hold that by this process, the plaintiff is not altering the nature of the suit or the cause of action and the amendment will not cause any prejudice to the defendants rather by the present amendment, the plaintiff-petitioner has tried to furnish only the details about the land in dispute in Schedule 'A' of the plaint. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the amendment as prayed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the plaint is, hereby, allowed. The order impugned dated 12.12.2007 and the subsequent order dated 09.06.2009 passed by learned Munsif-II, Dhanbad in T.S. No. 171 of 2005 are, hereby, set aside. The court below is directed to proceed in accordance with law and since it is an old suit of the year 2005, the court below is further directed to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within six months from the next date fixed in the suit in the court below. 12. Consequently, this writ application is allowed, but no order as to cost. Application allowed.